His chronic unemployment would be consistent with that.
He also dropped the chisel he used to open the window and didn’t stop to pick it up. Among all of the “amazing coincidences” the desperate-for-exoneration people ignore is that it matched the set he had in his garage, including being the size of the one that would have fit in the empty space. Among other evidence not mentioned in this thread yet, they also have to sidestep the problem of his highly idiosyncratic handwriting and misspellings matching those on the ransom note, and his distinctive voice and accent being identified by people who had only heard him on the phone. The guy did it, okay?
And he did it alone, too. There is not only no evidence, but no plausible speculation, for anyone else’s involvement. Not even his wife’s - she didn’t even know his real name was Bruno, for pity’s sake, much less how they were paying for all that new furniture and stuff. But people are willing to believe her insistence that he just couldn’t have done it? Without her lifelong campaign, there wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory at all, and even with it, it’s sheer fantasy.
I’ve seen numerous pieces about this case over the years, and what stood out to me was the lack of credibility in the evidence and number of lies offered by the prosecution and investigators. They’re dismissed as harmless matters that don’t diminish finding some of the ransom money, and the alleged matching of nail holes. But I remain suspicious of the circumstances. There’s no question in my mind that Hauptmann did not receive a fair trial, and that in a modern courtroom the case would have been dismissed. Exculpatory evidence was excluded, and even the circumstances of the turnover of ransom money were suspicious. Hauptmann may well have become involved after the crime by contacting the intermediary and taking the ransom money even though he was not involved with the original crime. Maybe they railroaded a guilty man, but I have no doubt that once a culprit was alleged, the NJ police and prosecutors would have seen no limits to justice in arriving at a conviction.
The “CAL-spiracy” theory isn’t IMHO the most convincing. But it does neatly explain a few things that are troublesome otherwise which is why I imagine it keeps coming up.
1.) It explains why Lindbergh did things that hindered the investigation (the alternative explanation being that he thought there’d be a greater chance of getting his son back that way)
2.) If the body was dumped where it was at some point after the crime, as I believe it was, it explains why (having the body show up puts an end to any further extortion attempts).
3.) It explains how the “kidnapping” was pulled off so smoothly. (The alternative explanantion being the “Hauptmann and company” theory with at least one insider.)
A carpenter’s ladder is not easily portable. The ladder he designed was collapsible and small enough to be easily carried to and from the house. (It turned out to be a little too flimsy and broke, IIRC.)
Yes. A wood extension ladder back then was extremely heavy compared to a modern Home Depot aluminum ladder. It’s not something you’d want to carry some distance, even if you had help. The kidnap ladder broke because one of the joints was weak. It would have been trivial to reinforce the joint but it was not done for whatever reason.
I think Hauptman was guilty of something, whether he shinned up a ladder and grabbed the kid I don’t know, no witness has EVER placed him in the vicinity of Hopewell on the night of the snatch.
Again, the ransom note is troublesome for the Hauptman defenders, even modern handwriting experts have all agreed Bruno is a 100% match.
But the ladder is problematic, was wood expensive back in the 1930s, he and his family were quite well off, why the frig would he rip up his own attic to make a ladder when a trip to Home Depot would have been safer and less suspicious ?
Even by the dubious standards of early 20th Century US Justice the trial was a farce, Lindbergh lied his ass off throughout, and was treated with obsequious deference [ allowed to sport a loaded pistol throughout the trial ] and respect instead of being grilled mercilessly as a material witness and even a potential suspect.
Hauptman’s refusal to confess [ or to invent a pack of lies, something, ANYTHING , to safe his ass ] or implicate others is baffling, he really did think he would get reprieve.
What’s crazy is how Lindbergh still thought the US should stay out of WWII because the Germans were the master race and their air force would drop bombs on New York, even after Hauptman couldn’t carry a baby five miles without dropping it on its head.
Do you have a cite that the original ransom note left at the scene was matched to Hauptmann? That would be a significant factor, but I’m not recalling any details regarding this at the moment. It’s certainly reasonable that Hauptmann later tried to cash in on the crime by providing his own ransom note. I just don’t recall any significant credible evidence that showed he was involved in the actual kidnapping.
Yes, you may have a point, the note found at the scene [ by Lindbergh himself, strangely his wife and Nanny saw no note in the nursery ] was one of many recieved
Not true, the Hauptman family, after a few years of hard graft after arriving from Germany were very well off for a working class family. At one time having a whopping $4000 in the bank.
In fact at the height of the Depression in 1931, his and another family had a 4 month, 14 000 mile road trip holiday to California and then back to NY. Hardly the behaviour of a poor immigrant.
There are things we know about the case, things that are prettty safe assumptions, and things that we don’t have the foggiest idea about. The ladder wood falls into the last category, but there’s a few theories and one of them is probably correct so I’ll list them all, in what I consider to be the least to most likely.
1.) Police took a piece from Hauptmann’s attic and substituted it into the ladder to frame him
2.) Hauptmann deliberately uses a piece of his attic to leave a “calling card” at the crime scene.
3.) Hauptmann simply needs a piece of wood when building the ladder so he saws a piece of his attic rather than bother to run to “Home Depot”
4.) After the ladder is built it breaks, a replacement piece is needed immediately because of the timing of the job precluding going to “Home Depot”, so Hauptmann reluctantly saws a piece of his attic
5.) Hauptmann is afraid that if he’s caught, someone at Home Depot would rembember him buying wood.
6.) An electrician saws the board years earlier to fish wire and leaves it in the house, Hauptmann uses scraps of lumber here and there and hasn’t the foggiest idea where this one particular board came from.
Although it’s That’s one aspect of the “Hauptmann and Company” theory I find troubling, unless he’s the actual one that snatched the baby so spilling the beans on co-conspiraters and having them talk wouldn’t improve things. He did try his “Fisch Story” though. As far as confessing, maybe
He really was innocent, of the kidnapping half at least.
He didn’t want to be known to his family and go down in history as a confessed murderer.
3.) He’d rather die than spend life in prison.
He distrusted the government enough to be leery of any deals, figuring he’d confess and then be plugged into the wall anyway.
In the US to get a death sentence you need to generally either prove 1) premeditated murder, or 2) felony murder. There’s no way to prove the actual death of the baby was premediated, so the prosecuters when with felony murder: a death (even accidental) that occurs during the comission of a felony (crime punishable by more than 1 years imprisonment). In Hauptmann’s case the felony was burglary for entering the home with the intent to steal: He stole the baby’s clothing (with the baby in it!!!) If Hauptmann’s only involvement was making the ladder or extortion it would be in his interests to name names, but if he was at or near the scene, even just holding the ladder steady he could still be convicted of the felony murder.
It’s interersting to note that Hauptmann couldn’t be charged under the Lindberg law either since that only applies if the kidnapper crosses state lines with the victim or body. Although as I’ve stated before I believe the body was dumped where it was at a time later than the night of the kidnapping, it would have to be provably in another state at some point.